The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

(Getty Images via @daylife)

Back in 1992, Major League Baseball slapped a lifetime ban on Steve Howe, a New York Yankees relief and abuser of alcohol and cocaine, after seven suspensions for violating the league’s drug policy. But the ban didn’t last – arbitrator George Nicolau ruled in Howe’s favor at an offseason hearing, deeming the ban excessive and reducing Howe’s penalty all the way down to time served. He was back on the Yankee Stadium mound in the spring of 1993.

That’s the kind of precedent that Fred Horowitz, the arbitrator in the Alex Rodriguez case, is facing. Horowitz isn’t necessarily obligated to follow precedent. But experts say it’s common. That’s good news for A-Rod, who is playing out the 2013 season before his arbitration case is decided, most likely in November or December.

“The Howe case is an opening,” says Mike Volpe, an attorney with Venable LLP in New York who has argued many arbitration cases. “You have a precedent of a seven-time offender getting reduced.”

Horowitz, a Santa Monica, Calif. - based attorney and mediator of labor disputes since 1989, is the replacement for Shyam Das, the arbitrator who let Ryan Braun skate on a technicality last year who was subsequently fired by MLB. Das also reduced a suspension, and greatly reduced a fine, for Atlanta pitcher John Rocker back in 2000, when MLB tried to stick it to him for non-PC comments to Sports Illustrated about New York’s diverse population. While Das would seem to have the pedigree that A-Rod’s team is looking for, Horowitz is apparently noted for his pro-labor stance, too, as my colleague David Lariviere notes.

Rodriguez is, technically speaking, a first time offender, a status that brings a 50-game suspension under baseball’s Joint Drug Agreement with the players’ union. His admitted PED use as a Texas Ranger from 2001 to 2003 came before the testing policy was set up between the league and the union. MLB can try to argue in a hearing that A-Rod’s past PED use is relevant. But as Volpe points out, “That’s not what the agreement says.”

Then there’s baseball’s decision to load up the suspension with more games by handing it down through a combination of both the Joint Drug Agreement and the Collective Bargaining Agreement – the former for using PEDs, the latter for trying to obstruct and “frustrate” the commissioner’s investigation. Again - problematic. While MLB would argue that the various offenses legitimately spread over both agreements, A-Rod’s lawyers will say it’s all the same ball of wax.

“The idea was to negotiate an exclusive agreement for the PED issue,” says Volpe of the Joint Drug Agreement. “They’ll say, ‘why did we negotiate this separate document?’ It could be persuasive.”

What Commissioner Bud Selig did not do, at least in his public statement: specify the number of games that Rodriguez is being suspended under each agreement. A-Rod's appeal only applies to the Joint Drug Agreement, as noted by this final snippet of Selig's statement: "Under the terms of the Joint Drug Prevention and Treatment Program, Rodriguez's suspension will be stayed until the completion of his appeal if Rodriguez files a grievance challenging his discipline."

Jim Lackritz, a business professor at San Diego State University and sports industry expert, figures that Horowitz will ask Selig to give him a specific breakdown. Selig's statement implies that an arbitrator can only rule on the number of games A-Rod is being suspended for under the drug agreement, not the CBA. So, for example, if MLB produces evidence that A-Rod juiced on one occasion (post Texas 2001-03), then his supposed punishment under the drug agreement is 50 games.

But let's s say MLB has decided to include Rodriguez's 2001-03 admission and is treating any subsequent postive test as a second offense, that would add an additional 100-game ban. So - if Selig tells Horowitz that he's suspending Rodriguez for 150 games under the drug agreement and another 61 games under the CBA for obstruction, Horowitz could reduce the drug agreement component from 150 games to 50 if he feels that A-Rod's earlier Texas admission should not be included.

"Horowitz would have no ruling on the other 61 games," says Lackritz, leaving it intact, for a total of 111 games.

A-Rod's lawyers could then fight the CBA component of the suspension in court, keeping the circus alive awhile longer. But even if the lawyers' arguments on both sides are limited to the arbitration hearing, there are lots of billable hours on the table.

Says Lackritz: "The biggest winners here are the attorneys, not Alex Rodriguez or MLB."